pkphilip

lol.. I have UAC turned off caz it produces more false alarms than my firewall.

Philip

sko

i'm using norton 360. is this bad?

WaruiOne

原帖由 ravemother 於 2007-12-4 16:58 發表

yes, i bought mine kaspersky from FS for 39.99. it is worth when compared to the time u need to format the computer and the risk of losing important data.

do you have to buy it every year for updates? or is it a one-time cost? i have tried the hacked versions, but kaspersky detect you so quickly. right now i am using nod32, it's working so-so, but i don't really like it though. might be the interface or whatever. and it doesn't seem to prevent the virus, just freaking popup virus warnings.

Nox

I use Avast right now, been using it for 2 years, the downside to that is it's making loading slow. It loads right at start of computer and usually updates itself as soon as it detects internet, so if you are in a hurry to get something from your drive, chances are, you'll have to wait a bit before it finishes everything before you get your regular speed again.  Anyhow, still love free antivirus so you don't have to pay them every year.  I hate Norton for eating up so much memory (when I was using XP) and you have to pay them every year.

pkphilip

Avcast is the one with the smallest resource consumption. Norton is good for most people as they are the cheapest all year around.

Kaspersky does update many times a day, and you need to renew by paying them every year.

Philip

asmok

Well... UAC is suppose to protect the OS from running anything that's not suppose to.  If UAC keeps popping up, that means some of the software you installed is not suppose to be accessing files in the OS or it's badly designed software.  I got a lecture from the instructor in my 5 days vista course a few weeks ago about UAC.  UAC is probably the only thing that prevents unauthorized access to system files even for sys-admin.

I think Norton is just bad..... considering it slows the machine down from a P4 to a 486......

pkphilip

For the UAC, you will get one of this in the course of using Vista normally:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80sWifG40B0

Philip

[ 本帖最後由 pkphilip 於 2007-12-8 17:14 編輯 ]

asmok

That's only the mac way to make fun of vista. If you use your vista regularly, not installing/uninstalling apps or running software testing on a daily basis, then u won't get those warnings.  

I got UAC turn on on my laptop and I don't get those on a daily basis.

Sometimes, it's easy to turn off the tool that's bugging you, but it'll defeat the purpose of using Vista if you turn off the core feature in the OS especially for those that pay for the upgrade.

Apple ads are on their website, you can view them all here:
http://www.apple.com/getamac/ads/

pkphilip

I remember Symantec used to have UAC like features in a few of their older security suites. I guess MS figured it would be better to have UAC on Vista.

As a power user, I need to go to Control Panels and access system level applications like Group Policy, Console Management etc on a regular basis daily. UAC warning happens in pretty much in every System Property pages. Many of them I feel is un-needed at all: Why need UAC access for re-checking Windows Experience Index or even Device Manager? Why need UAC for copying files to the guest shared folders? Wouldn't it be better to request permissions only when settings were changed? The most annoying part with Vista is the "administrator" option, why do I have specifically choose to "Run as Administrator" when I am already logged in as administrator?

I understand it's nice to have some more control, but to me it's more of an annoyance and counter-productive when I am servicing machines that run on Vista. Also, based on customer feedbacks, they get confused so much with UAC warning even they are doing legit things like installing Printer drivers. Installs tends to screw up because people click "cancel" as they are afraid of clicking "continue".

Mac does the UAC function better by only prompting when settings are made to the system. With Leopard, you can lock down the settings in Administration mode, until you want to unlock them to make changes.

With a comprehensive suites from Symantec, UAC seems to become unneccessary as the security program will prompt you for awkward changes in the system.

People these days seem to beg manufacturers to downgrade their systems to XP. Where in my case, I am running dual boot because Vista is faster than XP in my desktop. It is however restricted to DX10 gaming only.

Philip

asmok

UAC is design to prevent anything to install into the system folders including printers, new hardware, active x, etc.....

It's annoying to click continue when you want to go the the place you want to. It's like a system admin trying to go into the computer room, you'll need to scan your access card before you can go in.  The same applies to UAC. It prompts you for access before it let you in.  When you deploy hundreds of Vista PC, you'll want to have UAC turn on so dumb people won't have access to load crap on their machine so we don't have to fix it.  When you are servicing a machine, it's annoying during the time you need to service it, but you won't be the prime user.  The run as administrator is to prevent admin from making mistakes on the system.  If you don't want to run as administrator, then just login as the default administrator account. After all UAC is a tool that MS put in so they don't get blame if your machine get infected. As with all new tools from MS, nobody likes it to start with but we'll use it sooner or later when we move forward.

I prefer people clicking on cancel rather then continue if they don't know what they are doing. If they only click continues when it comes up, that means I'll need to fix their machine pretty soon cause those people tend to not read warnings.

Symantec suites cost $$ for those of us that don't make the big bucks and symantec slows the machine down.

Most home user won't have a choice when getting a new a new machine as all new machine is Vista, but business users can downgrade to XP for free.